How can you debate if you believe in relative truth?

[Nintii]

@ rizon72 ... You are correct in asserting that Common core "isn't as good as they say it is", because Common Core

is simply another name for Outcomes based education.

"Systems education" is called by a lot of different names, Outcome-based Education; Proficiency-Based Education;

Performance-Based Education, Competency-Based Education, Standards-Based Education.

But the agenda is the same.

This should help your argument ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErL9zPHdH4A

 

Anyhow back on topic ... to further the argument against Relativism, what standard or gauge would you use to

check your relative truths or beliefs ... how would you validate them ... by your feelings ?

If so, then the untold millions of murderers through the centuries would then be rendered guiltless.

This ultimately leads to the concept of maya - illusion ... where nothing is real, no absolutes, where everything

becomes acceptable because it is relative to my existence ... which is also in question, because how do I know

whether or not I am a truth ?

Edited November 1, 2013 by Nintii

[Dicecaster]

Semantics. Bascally, just don't use the term truth in context in place of a belief or opinion

 

But that's part of my point: relativists seem to confuse the term.

 

Debate is about consideration of facts and the implications of a specific position or circumstance. If debate were to change belief or opinion, then very little would ever be done in business or government.

 

Relative truth is a false concept.

The law of non-contradiction says two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time.

It is further a false concept because of the law of excluded middle. Something is either true or false; there is no third option, as would be necessary for a relative truth to exist.

Truth is absolute and narrow because it excludes its opposite. Relativists will argue that one cannot truly know reality and thus absolute truth does not exist, but this is an inconsistent argument.

1 plus 1 equals 2; this is an absolute truth and is reality and while one may want to debate whether or not 1 plus 1 equals 2, that doesn’t change its absolute truth.

 

Debate to identify a “truth” is an outlandish idea as something that is a truth cannot be debated.

However, relative truth is at best an opinion based upon specific conditions. Relative truth can be debated because it is neither true nor false, it is a position based upon specific conditions, and conditions can (and do) change.

 

I think we may be using the word debate in different contexts. Why is it that truth can't be debated (or, more precisely, whether something is truth)?

 

I agree with the points made against relativism (thank you, Nintii); I myself believe that absolute truth is the reality. I am looking to understand how a relativist supports his stance.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Dicecaster

[Tidus44]

I think we may be using the word debate in different contexts. Why is it that truth can't be debated (or, more precisely, whether something is truth)?

 

Of course we are using debate in different contexts.

 

An exchange regarding opinion is not a debate; it is an argument, a dispute or a discussion.

 

Whether something is a truth or not is a point that can be debated and is a primary purpose of debate. Debate is a process of deliberation or consideration of two opposing points of view based upon demonstrable fact(s). The purpose is to come to a compromise, agreement or resolution, not specifically to change opinion or belief (which is possible, but is not a necessity).

 

A truth by definition is a verified or indisputable fact, proposition or principle.

What would the opposing point be or how would one dispute something that is indisputable?

[Ghogiel]

 

Semantics. Bascally, just don't use the term truth in context in place of a belief or opinion

 

But that's part of my point: relativists seem to confuse the term.

 

You are painting with too broad a brush. And if any do do that, then simply clarify or ask for clarification of the terms at the start of the discussion so everyone is on the same page.

[MajKrAzAm]

A truth by definition is a verified or indisputable fact, proposition or principle.

What would the opposing point be or how would one dispute something that is indisputable?

Where do moral truths fit into your definition?

[Ghogiel]

 

A truth by definition is a verified or indisputable fact, proposition or principle.

What would the opposing point be or how would one dispute something that is indisputable?

Where do moral truths fit into your definition?

 

No objective source of morality has ever been confirmed.

 

While an objective morality may or may not be a true, it is certainly debatable.

[Tidus44]

 

A truth by definition is a verified or indisputable fact, proposition or principle.

What would the opposing point be or how would one dispute something that is indisputable?

Where do moral truths fit into your definition?

 

 

They don't, as no such a thing as a moral truth exists. A moral truth exists the same as a relative truth. It is only relative to a specific situation or condition.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Tidus44

[HeyYou]

"Truth" is NOT indisputable. One mans truth, is another mans lie. It is all about perspective.

[Tidus44]

"Truth" is NOT indisputable. One mans truth, is another mans lie. It is all about perspective.

 

So, by my stating that 1 plus 1 equals 2, this is a lie to someone based upon their perspective? I'd be interested in exactly how the individual finds this to be a lie and how they would dispute it.

[HeyYou]

Don't think I said they would be 'right', or even 'rational'...... If you look to Washington DC, there you find a group of people, each with their own 'truth', that are absolutely sure they hold the only version of the truth. Trouble is, not a single one of them agree, and they simply can NOT all be right.

 

Besides, 1 + 1 = 10.